h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi Autist,

Very interesting article. I'm a little confused by the "disclaimer." Did you add that in hopes that it would satisfy the moderators, or because you really aren't sure that it's true?

I'm trying to figure another way that this article could be written or presented to take the edge off. If this sequence of events is laid out in one main source, you could present this as something like a book review. That would make it clearer that you are not presenting all the details as "facts," but repeating the details of the book as you understand them.

If you wrote a review of two conflicting biographies of Thomas Jefferson, would they claim that your review is potentially defamatory, because the claims made by one of the biographies may not be true? (I'll post this question on Community Soapbox.)

It's disturbing that they would censor this article, because it clearly puts no lives in danger. It might contribute to confusion among lobotomized readers who think that all content on h2g2 represents the opinions of BBC. But they're being really inconsistent by choosing to censor this piece, simply because they have no easy access to your source books or articles. How many guide entries about mundane things like beauty salons or the discovery of x-rays rely on outside source material that the moderators or editors have not read? Or are all guide entries backed up with sources that can be found on the web?

Then we have to back up a step and notice that they're not just rejecting this from the Edited Guide, but altogether preventing it from being seen even as an unedited entry. How many thousands of strange stories or jokes or pseudo-histories or fictions, written as guide entries already, are potentially incorrect or libelous? Apparently if you write against the CIA, then you have to provide credible links to back up every detail, but if you accuse bin Laden and the Taliban of conspiring to kill thousands of civilians, based on circumstantial evidence, then that's okay?

In another message thread where I was complaining about the new Guidelines during the Afghanistan Crisis, I asked the h2g2 editors about your Laos article, and they said that it was a matter of possible "defamation," something that would fall under the old rules too.

But if they claim that this article could "defame" a person or group, there must be hundreds of other guide entries with this potential, all the sources for which they could not possibly have checked. For example, "Not Banned Yet" wrote a massive guide entry about "War and Protest: US in Vietnam." He said it ran to 43 pages long as a Word document. It's full of short quotes (fair use) and lengthy excerpts from public domain stuff. I know they asked him about one of the long sections, a phone conversation between President Johnson and somebody, and NBY was able to provide a link showing that it's not copyrighted material. But I seriously doubt that they have taken the time to do a thorough fact-checking on the rest of that article, because it's not inflammatory enough for them to worry about. And it has been mostly visible for at least a week or so, only hidden for one night, and NBY said he never received an email asking for changes or explaining why. (Not complaining here. Probably moderator decision overturned by an Editor?) The only hold-up was a copyright question about the telephone conversation excerpt before considering it "recommended" for the Edited Guide, never any demand for online sources before they would even bring it out of hiding.

If this is the kind of thing that BBC needs to block, then we can't rely on h2g2 as a forum for open, mature discussion.

Hell, I don't know why I get so worked up over it sometimes. It's just censorship. Every two or three weeks something comes up to remind me again of how little respect BBC has for us, and it wakes me up again. But it's nothing new, just a variation on the same old *